Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

True, but at the same time, it's not performing the function that was advertised upon which the purchasing decision was made. A reasonable person would believe that if it wasn't subject to physical harm (impact, water, heat, excessive voltage, etc.) then it would perform the advertised functions for a certain useful life. "Anyone who briefly possesses it can destroy that function without physical harm" wasn't advertised. IANAL but I think a judge would see it this way.



One could also say the user did high risk travel without securing the device properly too.

In any case, Apple can't be blamed here. Apple does not know what really happened.

Here is a great example of why Apple takes the position they do:

Sim card takeovers. Remember when most of tech thought tying accounts to phone numbers was a good idea?

Remember the people saying that was a very bad idea?

People can get their digital lives taken, or very seriously impacted just by someone knowing a phone number!

The same social engineering and or permissive policy being advocated for in this laptop case gets used all the time to swap a user's sim card!

Once that has been done, the attacker can do password swaps and cause all sorts of grief.


For non-Apple laptops (ie, Dell) it's also possible to effectively brick the device by setting BIOS passwords that can't be undone without replacing a chip or similarly invasive means




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: